Timothy M. Duggan

The applicant condominium corporation sought to prohibit the holding of a unitholders' meeting scheduled pursuant to a requisition.

The court issued an endorsement scheduling an urgent case conference and directed the applicant to provide notice of the conference to the affected parties.

The respondent landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating her tenancy for persistent late payment of rent.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit as it raised no extricable questions of law, only questions of fact and mixed fact and law.

The court also found the appeal to be an abuse of process because the tenant had not paid rent for 11 months and was using the automatic stay to live rent-free.

The appeal was quashed and the tenant was ordered to vacate the premises.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting judgment to the respondents for unpaid invoices.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in law by failing to properly apply the two-year limitation period to the 2014 invoices, incorrectly calculating the statute-barred portion.

The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the judgment for Dutchmaster Nurseries Inc. to the single invoice within the limitation period, while upholding the judgment for Dutchman Industries Inc. as there was no palpable and overriding error in finding no contra agreement existed with them.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order and to lift a stay on evictions.

The tenant had been using the condominium unit for short-term rentals in breach of condominium rules and had stopped paying rent.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit as it raised no questions of law, and constituted an abuse of process designed solely to obtain an automatic stay of eviction while the tenant continued to collect sub-rent.

The motion to quash was granted, and the request to lift the stay was deemed moot as the provincial moratorium on evictions had ended.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal from a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The tenant argued the Board erred in its application of s. 83(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act regarding serious breaches and retaliation.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was manifestly devoid of merit as it raised only issues of fact or mixed fact and law, not questions of law.

The court also found the appeal was an abuse of process due to the tenant's failure to pay rent and delay in perfecting the appeal.

The motion to quash was granted.

The tenant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order terminating his tenancy for persistent late payment of rent.

The tenant failed to attend the hearing and subsequent review hearings, and did not comply with the Rules of Civil Procedure regarding his appeal.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the appeal or dismiss it for delay, and to lift the automatic stay of eviction.

The Divisional Court found the appeal was devoid of merit, raised no legitimate point of law, and constituted an abuse of process designed to delay eviction.

The court quashed the appeal, lifted the stay of eviction, and awarded substantial indemnity costs to the landlord.

The plaintiff City of Saskatoon was defrauded of over $1 million when it was tricked into depositing a payment meant for a contractor into a fraudulent bank account.

The funds were dispersed by the account operator to various individuals.

The City traced and froze the funds.

On a motion to determine entitlement to the remaining frozen funds, the respondents claimed to be innocent victims who paid valuable consideration.

The court found the respondents failed to provide evidence that they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice or that they had innocently changed their position.

The court ordered the remaining funds returned to the City.

The applicant unit owners brought an application against the respondent condominium corporation regarding a water leak originating from their bathroom and alleging oppressive conduct.

The court found that the leak originated from an overflow pipe within the boundaries of the applicants' unit, making it their responsibility to repair, not the corporation's.

The court also dismissed the oppression claims, finding that the corporation's actions in investigating the leak, enforcing rules, and managing expenses were reasonable and did not constitute coercive or unfairly prejudicial conduct.

The tenant, who suffers from mental illness, appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The Divisional Court found that the Board failed to accommodate the tenant's disability by refusing to grant a second adjournment, which prevented her from fully and fairly participating in the process.

The appeal was allowed, the Board's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy for unauthorized occupants, and a subsequent review decision that declined to set aside the termination order.

The tenant argued she did not receive notice of the original hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's conclusion that the tenant failed to exercise due diligence in checking her mail and was therefore reasonably able to participate in the hearing.

The applicants sought a declaration that new condominium rules prohibiting transient or hotel-like use of units were invalid, arguing inconsistency with declarations allowing no minimum lease term.

The respondents contended the rules were consistent with provisions requiring units to be used as private, single-family residences.

The court found the respondents' interpretation reasonable, upholding the new rules, and granted the respondents' cross-application for compliance.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing her request for a review of an eviction order for failure to pay rent.

The tenant argued she did not receive the notice of hearing by mail and that the Board erred in law by dismissing her review request without an oral hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and in accordance with the statutory provisions governing service by mail.

The Plaintiffs sought costs on a partial indemnity basis after the Defendants' anti-SLAPP motion to strike the Statement of Claim was dismissed.

The Defendants opposed, citing the presumption against costs under s. 137.1(8) of the Courts of Justice Act and their partial success in striking certain paragraphs.

The court found that despite the expressions not being related to public interest, the proceeding bore indicia of a SLAPP suit, including a history of litigation to silence critics, a power imbalance, and a punitive purpose.

Considering the legal uncertainty surrounding s. 137.1 at the time and the Defendants' partial success, the court declined to award costs to the Plaintiffs.

The defendants in a defamation action brought a motion to dismiss the proceeding under the anti-SLAPP provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, and a motion to strike portions of the statement of claim.

The defamation claim arose from anonymous letters distributed to condominium residents alleging corruption by the plaintiffs, who were current or former board members.

The court dismissed the anti-SLAPP motion, finding that the defendants could not rely on the provision while denying they made the statements, and that in any event, condominium board politics do not constitute a matter of public interest.

The court granted the motion to strike in part, removing paragraphs from the statement of claim that were irrelevant and vexatious.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The eviction was ordered after the landlord sold the residential unit and the purchasers required it for personal use.

The tenant's appeal automatically stayed the eviction.

The Divisional Court found that the tenant's grounds of appeal challenged findings of fact and did not raise any extricable questions of law as required by section 201 of the Residential Tenancies Act.

The court quashed the appeal, lifted the stay, and ordered the immediate enforcement of the eviction.

The landlords brought a motion to dismiss or quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board eviction order.

The Board had ordered eviction after finding the tenant deliberately started a fire at the residential complex.

The tenant filed a notice of appeal but took no further steps to perfect it.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding it raised no question of law as required by s. 210(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, and was devoid of merit.

The stay of the eviction order was lifted and immediate vacant possession was ordered.

The appellant appealed from a Landlord and Tenant Board consent order terminating his occupancy and a review order dismissing his request for reconsideration.

The appellant argued that the consent order was invalid because he was the surviving spouse of the deceased tenant and could not waive his rights to continue the tenancy under the Residential Tenancies Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that even if the appellant had acquired the rights of a tenant, he was entitled to consent to the termination of the tenancy under s. 37(3) of the Act, and there was no evidence of mutual mistake, fraud, or other grounds to set aside the consent order.

The appellant landlords appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board which found an agreement to terminate the respondents' tenancy under s. 37(3) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006.

The landlords argued the Board erred by not applying general contract principles such as offer, acceptance, and consideration.

The Divisional Court held the standard of review was reasonableness and the Board made no error of law, as the statute only requires finding whether the parties agreed or consented to terminate, not a formal contract.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a $21,270 costs order made by a Small Claims Court Deputy Judge following a 12-day trial over a $1,500 dispute regarding condominium records.

The defendant argued the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction because the amount in dispute was under the $2,500 threshold in section 31 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court held that section 33 allows an appeal as to costs with leave, regardless of the amount in dispute.

However, leave to appeal was denied because the Deputy Judge properly considered the principle of proportionality and the plaintiff's unreasonable behaviour when awarding costs.

The landlord brought a motion to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board consent order terminating the tenancy and ordering payment of rent arrears.

The tenant had appealed the order, which automatically stayed the eviction, arguing she was coerced into the agreement.

The Divisional Court granted the motion to quash, finding that the tenant failed to obtain leave to appeal a consent order, raised no question of law, and brought the appeal solely for the purpose of delay to remain in the premises without paying rent.